UNION OF INDIA Vs. AMRITLAL BORANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Union of India is aggrieved with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 22nd March, 1999 in the Original Application No. 263/97 filed by respondent Amritlal Borana.

(2.) THE facts which are not in dispute are that the said respondent employee who was serving in the office of the Dy. Controller of Stores, Northern Railway superannuated on 31st Oct., 1998. However, before he superannuated, he was served with a chargesheet Under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (D and A) Rules, 1968 proposing to impose a major penalty. During the pendency of that enquiry, Original Application No. 469/94 was moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing that enquiry and releasing the retiral benefits in the form of gratuity to the applicant. The respondent applicant was being paid a provisional pension and there is no dispute about that. Since he was subjected to departmental enquiry at the time of his superannation, he was denied the benefit of commutation of pension at the time on superannation which he could opt only after culmination of those proceedings. So also the amount of gratuity which was otherwise payable to the petitioner on retirement was withheld.

(3.) IT transpires that in pursuance of this order the enquiry was completed by the enquiry officer and a report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 18.1.1996 well before the expiry of six months from the date of the communication of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal holding that no charge against the delinquent officer has been proved. But, the disciplinary authority was not inclined to agree with the findings. He, therefore, issued a notice to the delinquent containing the reasons for his disagreement with the report of the disciplinary officer along with supplying him a copy of the enquiry report. Despite making repeated efforts including sending the notices with the enquiry report through acknowledgment post the same could not be served. The acknowledgment receipt of registered post sent at last known address of the delinquent was returned by the postal authorities. In these circumstances, the disciplinary authority after recording his disagreement with the finding of the enquiry officer and holding that charges against the delinquent are proved, referred the case to the Railway Board whose President after carefully considering the report of the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority and imposed a penalty of withholding 10% of the monthly pension otherwise admissible to Mr. Amritlal for a period of one year. That order recording all these facts chronologically was passed on 11.7.1997. Apparently, making of this order fell beyond the six months limit fixed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the application for extension of the deadline for making an order having failed, the delinquent officer moved an application for review of the order dated 11.7.1997 in the light of peremptory order made by the CAT in O.A. No. 469/94. This prayer was considered favourable by the President and the order imposing penalty was recalled on 31.8.1998.